Is theism a simple hypothesis? The simplicity of omni-properties | Religious Studies | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

One reason for thinking that theism is a relatively simple theory – and that it is thereby more likely to be true than other theories, ceteris paribus – is to insist that infinite degrees of properties are simpler than extremely large, finite degrees of properties. This defence of theism has been championed by Richard Swinburne in recent years. I outline the objections to this line of argument present in the literature, and suggest some novel resources open to Swinburne in defence. I then argue that scientists' preference for universal nomological propositions constitutes a very strong reason for supposing that theism is simpler than parodical alternatives in virtue of its positing omni-properties rather than parallel ‘mega-properties’.

References

Bradley, M. C. (2002) ‘The fine-tuning argument: the Bayesian version’, Religious Studies, 38, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bradley, M. C. (2007) ‘Hume's chief objection to natural theology’, Religious Studies, 43, 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dilley, F. B. (2000) ‘A finite god reconsidered’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 47, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fawkes, D. & Smythe, T. (1996) ‘Simplicity and theology’, Religious Studies, 32, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gellman, J. (2000) ‘Prospects for a sound stage 3 of cosmological arguments’, Religious Studies, 36, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grünbaum, A. (2000) ‘A new critique of theological interpretations of physical cosmology’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gwiazda, J. (2009a) ‘Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, and Principle P’, Sophia, 48, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gwiazda, J. (2009b) ‘Richard Swinburne's argument to the simplicity of God via the infinite’, Religious Studies, 45, 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Madden, E. H. & Hare, P. H. (1968) Evil and the Concept of God (Springfield IL: C. Thomas).Google Scholar

Philipse, H. (2012) God in the Age of Science: A Critique of Religious Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pruss, A. R. (2009) ‘The Leibnizian cosmological argument’, in Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell), 24–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Q. (1998) ‘Review article: Swinburne's explanation of the universe’, Religious Studies, 34, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, E. (1990) ‘God, the demon, and the status of theodicies’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 27, 163–167.Google Scholar

Swinburne, R. (2010) ‘God as the simplest explanation of the universe’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weizsäcker, C. F. von (1964) The Relevance of Science (New York: Harper & Row).Google Scholar

Wynn, M. (1993) ‘Some reflections on Richard Swinburne's argument from design’, Religious Studies, 29, 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar